Wareham accountant hearing continues

Thursday

Mar 12, 2009 at 12:01 AM

WAREHAM — Part two of town accountant Bob Bliss' disciplinary hearing took place Wednesday as the debate continued as to whether Bliss acted appropriately when he authorized payment for vacation and sick time to former Town Administrator Michael Hartman.

JENNIFER LADE

WAREHAM — Part two of town accountant Bob Bliss' disciplinary hearing took place Wednesday as the debate continued as to whether Bliss acted appropriately when he authorized payment for vacation and sick time to former Town Administrator Michael Hartman.

The nearly four-hour hearing focused on the testimony of Selectmen Brenda Eckstrom and Bruce Sauvageau, who were in office at the time of the disputed payment in March 2007. Both said they disapproved of the $35,000 payment to Hartman, which was authorized by Bliss and then-selectmen Chairman R. Renee Fernandes-Abbott based on advice from town counsel. Eckstrom and Sauvageau said that because of Hartman's policy that the town should not keep track of employees' sick time and vacation time, the only record of what Hartman was owed was his handwritten note, which they felt to be insufficient evidence that he was due payment.

Debate focused on whether Bliss was aware of the majority of the board's disapproval of the payment.

Eckstrom testified that she had been searching payroll warrants for a payment to Hartman; when it did not appear on the warrant she expected, she told Bliss on March 12 or 13, 2007, selectmen would not sign off on such a payment. But the payment was made by direct deposit on March 14, then rescinded on March 14 and reissued by manual check on March 15. Selectmen did not see the payroll warrant with that payment until the following weekend, when they would customarily sign the warrants. At that point, believing the payment had not yet been made, Eckstrom, Sauvageau and Selectman Jim Potter refused to sign the warrant.

Bliss' attorney, Robert Burke, emphasized that paychecks were regularly going out before the board signed the corresponding warrant, and if selectmen wanted to dispute Hartman's payment, they could have visited Town Hall on Wednesday, March 14, when the warrant was ready, rather than waiting until the weekend. Eckstrom and Sauvageau said they were never notified that they should be going in on Wednesdays to sign warrants, and they said that at the time, they were not aware that they were signing warrants on which the payments had already been made.

Through the selectmen's testimonies, Burke emphasized that the first time selectmen talked publicly about disapproving of the payment was on March 20, after Hartman had already cashed his check, which means Bliss could not possibly have known about the board's formal objections to the payment. In addition, at a March 27 meeting when the issue was discussed, selectmen acknowledged that they never mentioned that Bliss specifically was at fault.

"I think at that point in time I had no clue who was right or wrong," Sauvageau said.

Burke questioned whether it was fair that Bliss be subjected to another investigation after former town administrator John McAuliffe conducted one and found no disciplinary action was warranted. However, Sauvageau said selectmen had asked for an investigation by McAuliffe but were never updated, so they asked for an investigation by special town counsel Steve Torres.

The hearing was adjourned after Eckstrom and Sauvageau's testimonies. Interim Town Administrator John Sanguinet said the hearing will continue at 12:30 p.m. Tuesday at Town Hall.